Solar Syndicate, Dungri vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

M/s Solar Syndicate, Dungri, have filed the present petition through Shri Gurinder Singh, Executive (OperationsNorth) under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the complaint Annexure P 3 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, under sections 2 K (i) and 29 (1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, read with rule 2(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 197 1, and for quashing all consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

As per allegations made in the complaint, the Insecticide Inspector Jasbir Singh inspected the premises of M/s Ahuja Agro Chemicals, Patiala on June 23, 1988. and took the sample of Butachlor 50% (Solar) manufactured by the petitioner firm in three sealed packages of the company. All the three packages of tin were further sealed in the presence of Shri Bhupinder Kumar, representative, of M/s Ahuja Agro Chemicals, Patiala, and one sealed package was, handed over to him. One sealed package was, sent to the insecticide Quality Control, Laboratory, Ludhiana, for analysis with and the third sealed sample was deposited Chief Agricultural Officer, Patiala. The Analyst reported that the sample was misbranded as it did not conform to ISI specifications in respect of its percentage of active ingredients test. Thus the complaint was. filed against M/s Ahuja Agro Chemicals, Patiala, and M/s Solar Syndicate, Dungri (Bulsar), manufacturer of weedicide.

The petitioner alleged that the shelf life of the sample had already expired when the complaint was filed on August 29 1980. The petitioner firm was summoned for the first time on July, 17, 1992. and thus the firm was deprived of its right to get the second sample examined from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and an opportunity to controvert the correctness of the report of the Analyst was denied. No showcause notice was ever given to the petitioner after the report of the Analyst was received and the petitioner was denied the benefit of section 24 (3) of the Insecticides Act. Two samples of same batch No. 4 which were taken from M/s Kisan Agro Service Centre, Bhunderheri, on May 30, 1988, and M/s Patiala Pesticides, Grain Market, Patiala, were found as per ISI specifications. It was further pleaded that before the launching of the prosecution necessary sanction from the State Government was not obtained and in the absence of valid sanction the proceedings wore liable to be quashed.

In the return filed by the respondent, this fact was admitted that manufacturing date of the product of which sample was taken was May 1988 and expiry date was May 1990, but it was denied that a report of the Analyst was required to be sent to the manufacturer or that any valuable right of the petitioner was affected. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was to be delivered only to the person from whom the sample was taken and the dealer M/s Ahuja Agro Chemicals, Patiala was informed about the failure of the sample vide letter dated September 7, 1988. Regarding sanction it was maintained that proper sanction was granted by the sanctioning authority under section 31 (1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, after due application of mind and perusal of the record placed before the sanctioning authority and moreover this was a matter of evidence which was to be appraised by the trial Court.

I have heard Mr. Arun Chandra, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Sidhu Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the sample of Butachlor 50% EC was drawn on August 23, 1988. The date of manufacturing of insecticide was May 1988 and shelf life of the sample was to expire in May. 1990, but the complaint was filed in Court on August 29, 1990, i. e., after the expiry of shelf life of the insecticide The petitioner was summoned for the first time on July 17, 1992, and in this way he was deprived of his right to get the second sample examined from Central Insecticides Laboratory. The complaint was liable to be quashed on this ground alone. This contention of the learned counsel is quite valid Under section 2.1 of the Act, a report signed by the Insecticide Analyst is an evidence of the fact stated therein and such evidence is conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken, notifies in writing within twentyfive days of the receipt of a copy of the report his intention to adduce evidence in contravention of the report. He can controvert the report of the Insecticide Analyst by getting the second sample analysed from Central Insecticides Laboratory. In the present case, the petitioner was not served with copy of the report of the Insecticide Analyst and he was thus deprived of his right to get the second sample analysed from Central Insecticides Laboratory. He got notice of the complaint after more than two years of the expiry of shelf life of the sample. In this way, he was denied an opportunity to controvert the correctness of the report of the report of the Insecticide Analyst and proceedings are liable to be quashed on this ground.

So far as the question whether a copy of the report of Insecticide Analyst is required to be sent to the manufacturer or not is concerned, the same has already been settled. It is correct that there is no obligation on the part of Insecticides Inspector to supply a copy of the report of the analysis to the manufacturer of the insecticide but if the manufacturer of insecticide is sought to be prosecuted, there is no reason why a copy of the report should not be supplied to him. In Salil Singal and another v. The State of Haryana, 1992(1) CLR 455, It was held :

"The Insecticide Inspector is not bound to supply a copy of analysis report to manufacturer of insecticides found to be misbranded but in case Manufacturer is sought to be prosecuted, copy of the report of analysis is to be supplied to him before launching prosecution against him. Failure to do so tendered the complaint against him, liable to be quashed as it amounted to abuse of process of the Court."

In the present case, the petitioner was not supplied with copy of the report of Insecticide Analyst and he was thus deprived of his right to rebutthe report.

It was next urged on behalf of the petitioner that sample of Butachlor of the same batch was seized from M/s Kisan Agro Service Centre, Bhuderheri and M/s Patiala Pesticides, Grain Market. Patiala, and these were analysed by Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana, and were found to be satisfactory. As the insecticide of the same batch was found to be according to ISI specifications, the report in the present case was defective and it could not be said that the petitioner company was at fault. This contention or the learned counsel is also tenable. Annexure P 5 and Annexure P 6. are the copies of the reports of Senior Analyst, which show that Butachlor 50% EC manufactured by the petitioner consisting of batch No. 4 was not misbranded but was according to ISI specifications. This fact is recited in the complaint Annexure P 3 that the sample taken in the present case was from batch No. 4. In these premises if the complaint had been filed soon after the report of the Insecticide Analyst was received and notice thereof would have been given to the petitioner the petitioner must have controverted the report of the Insecticide Analyst by getting the second sample analysed from Central Insecticides Laboratory. As the petitioner was deprived of his valuable right of getting the sample reanalysed the complaint against him is liable to be quashed.

As a result. I accept this petition, quash the complaint Annexure P3 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner.